studiot

You seem to have answered me twice, so did you miss my reply ? anyway in response to your caveat - if that is correct - How big is the Koh-i-Noor diamond? Because technically is is one single molecule created by natural causes.

So what % would you put it at and why ? Bear in mind what I said about every living thing, past and present having to be the overall base to estimate this %.

You have one post left in the next 23.5 hours. My advice to you is to not engage in personal slanging matches with other members or you might not survive your first encounter with a moderator. As regards content I would be very happy to explain why our modern appreciation of logig has progressed far beyond this aristotelian view.

Quite simply these two sentences, as they stand, imply that that you think purpose applies to every evolutionary change. My point is quite simply that purpose and any other mechanisms at work account for a very small % of such changes.

Your graphic states "and are then converted into nitriles". This could well be the case, but the formation of nitrile and further carbon-nitogen compounds requires a catalyst, normally a copper salt on earth but UV light will also do. Bearing in mind the weakness of the UV light on Titan, I wonder what the convertion rate is ? A few % perhaps. Sorry I have no further information at the moment, you will need to look it up. Perhaps @exchemist or @sethoflagos or @chenbeier might add more.

I am growing tired of only half my posts being replied and especially as the helpful comments are ignored. I think I might just join the other members driven away by exhaustion, in the bar.

But since we are not supposed to judge people, should we not just simply kill all judges ? 😄

So let's recap. Underlying all the wrapping you have an idea that has been extensively worked out in mainstream physical science and technology. I know nothing of your technical background, but you seem to have rolled in some extremely dodgy popsci or science fiction notions into that wrapping which devalues what you are trying to achieve and causes you to introduce ad hoc 'cures' as and when you find out something you haven't come across or thought of. We all do this, some many times over, before an idea is hammered out into something workable. Even then there are often a few unanswered questions left over. That is why I have tried to point you at connections to minstream, especially to try and save you from 'reinventing the wheel'.

But I have never accepted that "Evolutionists" - whatever they may be - are neglecting anything. Perhaps a few are. Perhaps a few more are not working directly in those specific fields. But we should consider the following fact. Every species now or previously on Earth (and presumably elsewhere if there is life elsewhere) has been subject to some form of evolution, albeit some more than others. For instance I understand from geologists that stromatolites have seen very little change since their appearance over 3 billion years ago. In all of that massive spread of evolution many different factors and events have resulted in a diverse range of responses. (Remember evolution is about the interplay between a species and its environment) When we survey that vast array of responses and put it on one side of scale compared to a small quantity of unusual responses ( we should statistically expect some unusual ones) I do not find it at all suprising that the mainstream body of the theory is becoming a bit slow and ponderous. After all most of the evidence continues to pile up on one side of that scale. But it would be quite wrong to suggest that evolutionary has not responded or changed since its inception.

May I add 'or even extend' ?

Which brings me back to my question Microphotons pass through them. But then we have Which strikes me as a circular argument So why are the photons 'passing therough them' ? Because momentum passes through them ? Nothing backdoor about it. @OlegMarchenkov The ideas of momentum flux and particle flux is perfectly reasonable and conventional if handled correctly. Such models appear in the subjects 'continuum mechanics' and 'transport phenomena' which have very wide application in science and technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_phenomena https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_mechanics I suggest you need to get your concepts lined up correctly to make anything of your model. They are useful techniques, but certainly do not amount to a theory of everything.

Thanks guys.

Someone has changed what you wrote after I posted this quote and the timings on the posts are not wotking properly.

Why do you contradict me? I quoted from where you said exactly what I said, not the opposite. If you meant something different, please make the necessary amendments.

I've seen the tickboxing or crossing in coloured squares in one or two other threads now. Can anyone tell me if this is a result of AI output or something available in the new SF format or what please ?

Whilst a couldn't agree more that we need some maths, you can't have maths until there is something to calculate. And until the descriptions stop changing and make some sense there can be nothing to calculate. You said that the black dots are microparticles and that a bunch of these make up a photon. In you picture it seems to take different numbers of microparticles to make up one photon. Further the photons appear to be sevaral times larger than a microparticle. So how can a photon 'pass though' a microparticle ? The whole setup is making ever less sense to me.

If the black disks are particles or microparticles ( which one is still not clear) then what are the red circles and the white space since there is not such thing as vacuum ? Why are these particle moving?

So what is a microparticle ? Please elucidate the following What is the difference between a photon and a microparticle ? Note this is not a critism or rebuttal. I just do not understand what you are trying to say. Perhaps a heirarchy or list of particles might help.

No I didn't find anything offensive. But the onus remains with you to demonstrate that it is possible to tile or tesselate (let us say a plane as it is easier than 3D) a plane with circles. It is not enough to just declare it so you have to actually demonstrate it mathematically. I should warn you that lots of folks have tried but no one have ever achieved it as it is impossible. There are two several ways to approach the problem. One is to try to arrange them geometrically, without overlap. Another is to try to partition the plane into variable circles - this has been done by removal of a finite number of points from the plane. A third way is to consider the areas of the circles used and show that this adds up exactly to the area of the plane. You could try taking a square or other tesselating shape an see if you can make a match with an infinite series of circles, the series being conditioned by weighting factors of the numersof any given size of circle used.

I was not talking about orbital dynamics or paths. Going back to Poinsot's Theorem mechanics has to account for both statics and dynamics, both of which divisions embraced aspects of both translational and rotational mechanics. When are you going to address all the the points in my last post - they come as a package deal parts of which cannot be ignored ? Two of these points are particularly relevent since they refer to the interplay between rotational and translational dynamics.

It is not often that joigus graces his replies with this much detail of really well reasoned explanation and advice. +1 It is sound advicest I suggest you take it.

A further note Note that the page counter in a pdf viewer counts some blank pages so you must use the actual page numbers on the pages themselves. Page 84 is the crucial one to come away understanding ( to proceed to quantum theory) since it is about the potential energy of a body about to fall under gravity.

Why is it so important to you to be shown to be right in every respect ? In my turn I have agreed with some of your statements and listed good scientific reasons why I disagree with some of them. This one you simply misinterpreted since I was talking about content not speed This one is your claim not mine so it is for you to prove, mathematically, that your premises lead to the conculsion you claim. But note that since the sphere is a convex hull (has positive curvature everywhere) the will always be spaces left between touching spheres of any size, different or the same. Firther I already presented a link to the conventional maths for the simplest case and explained why you can't fill up the gaps leftover. Ddi you not read it ? Just as an alternative thought; Why do your units have to be spheres ? I also showed many solids that will fill 3D completely. Certainly QM geometry has very few spheres in it.

Don't worry too much about the maths - it's concepts they want to teach at your stage. Here is an american physics text for 7th grade. https://chilot.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/83fa6-grade-7-physics-textbook.pdf See if you have covered forces and measurement in sections 1 -3 then Have a look at section 4 Energy, Work and Power pages 75 - 90. Then you will be able to make some sense of explanations. You will only need very simple maths at this stage.

Yes, if you have a garden you could pour them onto the compost heap, say one a week. but dont out them directly into the soil at this time of year. December would be OK for that. Alternatively just pour them down an outside drain or gully and rinse them out.